Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court order that had quashed FIRs under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act against a school computer teacher accused of touching female students' hands in the computer lab, asking invasive questions and sending obscene images. The High Court had conducted a mini trial on preliminary statements and wrongly read Section 7 as requiring physical contact of a particular kind; the allegations prima facie fell within 'any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact', and the matter was restored for trial with protective directions.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could quash FIRs under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act at the threshold by evaluating the victims' preliminary statements and concluding that no sexual intent could be inferred.
- Whether holding the hands of students while using the mouse, by a teacher in a position of authority, accompanied by invasive questions and obscene messages, prima facie constitutes sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
- What directions were required to protect the child victims and ensure an expeditious trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Section 7 defines sexual assault to include, besides touching the specified parts, 'any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration'. The Court held the High Court erred in reading the section as not attracted unless there was an act of physical contact with sexual intent of a particular kind; holding the hands of female students in the computer lab fell within 'any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact', and in a teacher-student relationship the accompanying conduct gave a sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of trial. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Section 8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Five FIRs were registered under Sections 7 and 8 (punishment for sexual assault); the Court held that prima facie ingredients of POCSO offences were made out for subjecting the accused to trial. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court noted that, before the High Court's judgment, investigation was complete, chargesheets had been filed and statements of some victims had already been recorded under Section 164, facts that were not highlighted before the High Court. (¶ 6)
Held
- The High Court ought not to have held a mini trial on the contents of the victims' preliminary statements and pre-judged the question of sexual intent without allowing the victims to enter the witness box; it also ignored that the accused was a teacher and the victims his students. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Section 7 of the POCSO Act is not confined to acts of physical contact of a particular kind: 'any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration' is sexual assault. Allegations that a teacher held the hands of female students while using the mouse fall within this limb, and where the teacher is in a position of authority and trust, such contact accompanied by invasive questions about sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images provides sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of proceeding to trial. (¶ 4)
- A 'settlement' procured by the accused with one of the victims, which led to quashing of one FIR, underlined the need to treat the victims as protected witnesses, keep their identity undisclosed and record their statements at the earliest; the Court refrained from further observations to avoid prejudice to the accused. (¶¶ 3, 5)
- The trial court was directed to conclude framing of charges within two weeks, take up the matter at least twice a month and record the statements of all alleged victims first; the prosecution must ensure the victims are treated as protected witnesses and the accused must not contact or influence them; the school management was directed to keep the accused under suspension until conclusion of trial, with liberty to hold an independent domestic enquiry. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment quashing the FIRs set aside; trial court to proceed with the trial, conclude framing of charges within two weeks and record the victims' statements first; victims to be treated as protected witnesses; respondent No. 1 to remain under suspension till conclusion of trial; pending interlocutory application disposed of.